Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lately the past couple of years I have seen a trend in discussion forums. It used to be for years and years that so long as you weren't verbally assaulting someone or cursing people out, that you could discuss whatever the topic was. Things have changed though.

Warseer got militant with its bannings a few years back, banning people for a number of things under the guise of "trolling", though looking at some of the bans and some of the conversations a lot of it seemed to simply be the moderator didn't agree with what the person was saying and had enough of hearing it.

TGA forums for AOS started banning people for negatively talking about AOS since TGA forums were supposed to be the AOS "happy place". They seem to have shifted from no negativity to "constructive criticism only", but again people have been banned for having a negative view point and seem to at least explained why that was, but were banned anyway.

Facebook groups are now banning people for having opinions contrary to the moderators, and even on warhammer community there are people being attacked for having negative feedback as "not being constructive and just being salty".

So - what does "constructive criticism" entail these days?

When you point out a problem and try to offer a solution, without hiperbole and other exagerations, or challenging the mental inteligence of the developer.


Eh... I mean... HOW COULD YOU Open this thread? A zombie-sheep should eat your brain!

auticus wrote:
So - what does "constructive criticism" entail these days?

"Agreeing with me."

Because let's be honest, that's how it's being used in this context.

Smaller communities like FB groups are run for the enjoyment of its members, so I see no real issue with removing people that aren't contributing to that enjoyment.

More open forums like Dakka or Warseer are a bit different tho due to their size and scope.

For the most part, people don't want criticism, constructive or otherwise. Just nod your head that 500 variations of Stormcast Eternal basic models are a good thing :p

For the most part, people don't want criticism, constructive or otherwise.

I think that this is very central and apt and on target.

The Internet is very good at creating places for people to find others that agree with them. It's not so good at fostering discussions about differences and giving people a means to understand each other's perspective. Various outlets actively employ algorithms that encourage confirmation bias and conflict is the norm for a large number of people.

That said, Dakka managed the tone and quality of debate better than others for a long time. Now I'm not so sure.

auticus wrote:

For the most part, people don't want criticism, constructive or otherwise.

I think that this is very central and apt and on target.

Yeah, people just want views that confirm their opinion and create spaces online with very little substance other than to ask random internet people to validate their opinion.

Pssst.

Don't tell anyone.

That's what this thread is.

No. thats not what this thread is. At all. This thread is trying to understand what people feel is "constructive criticism" these days as that is a common phrase thrown out "we don't want negative comments, but constructive criticism is welcome".

So I'm a bit confused as to what constitutes constructive criticism to people.

ex

When you point out a problem and try to offer a solution, without hiperbole and other exagerations, or challenging the mental inteligence of the developer.

Is a good answer.

Constructive criticism is, well, constructive. It's aim is point out flaws, but also provide solutions. At a minimum, it has some value or content beyond simply stating a dislike.

Everybody has a right to their opinion, and we all love a good dog pile at times, but if you really want to talk about something, relentless negativity doesn't really add much.

You kind of answered your own question in the OP: "it seemed to simply be the moderator didn't agree with what the person was saying and had enough of hearing it." It's not like these are pure echo chambers, but repeatedly hearing unnuanced dislike isn't really discussion.

True true very true.

 techsoldaten wrote:
The Internet is very good at creating places for people to find others that agree with them. It's not so good at fostering discussions about differences and giving people a means to understand each other's perspective. Various outlets actively employ algorithms that encourage confirmation bias and conflict is the norm for a large number of people.

That said, Dakka managed the tone and quality of debate better than others for a long time. Now I'm not so sure.

Interesting point of view - what do you think has changed recently?

Critiquing something involves discussion of its merits as well as its flaws, which is something that is often forgotten. Many people see constructive criticism as just pointing out faults.

Judging from what I see not only on wargaming related sites/forums, but also various DIY/Cosplay/Steampunk/Crafts groups, "constructive criticism" is not "pointing out flaws and proposing solutions" but instead is "appreciating what you see/get and eventually giving points to FURTHER improve the effect". If anything you say requires stepping back and redoing anything it is labelled as being negative or outright judgemental. On some DIY/craft forums this goes to the extent of accepting anything as "fine attempt that requires some refinement" even if it's something like gluing random plasticine cogs on IKEA furniture...

In wargaming rulesets and corporate context this translates to "any whining about things that are beyond practical changeability is negativity" - e.g. commenting point costs or asking for faq/erratas is deemed constructive, throwing "8th ed is a dumpster fire and needs to be redone from scratch" comments does not. Even if you provide more or less detailed framework on how such redone 8th ed should look like. In this context "constructive" is "being directly beneficial for the community".

I like a good argument. Maybe it's my profession but I feel like an adversarial exchange between people with different view points usually allows a reader to see the merits and flaws of each side and come away with their own opinion.

In my personal life this doesn't always work. People feel attacked when you don't just straight out agree with their position. They don't like to have their ideas challenged and don't like to have to defend their opinions. I think it takes a fair amount of intellectual honesty and introspection to examine why you think what you think and being challenged on my ideas has always helped me sharpen my opinions and make sure they are grounded in something real and not just the result of a heavily biased inference chain.

I think Dakka does a pretty good job of staying away from personal attacks and as salty or aggressive as some of the arguments get I feel like after reading them I come away better informed.

Now constructive criticism on art (painting/cosplay/whatever) is different because the artist has a lot of themselves in whatever they are showing and I can see how harsh criticism doesn't do them any good and sticking to poop sandwich phrasing (compliment - criticism - compliment) is probably the way to go. I tend to stay away from any criticism because the fact that they are brave enough to put themselves out there is awesome and 9 times out of 10 I'm not skilled/knowledgeable enough to offer any advice on how to improve.

I am strongly against banning/censoring people who hold opinions contrary to the majority as long as those opinions are expressed in a civilized way and are not based on a worldview that is harmful (racism, bigotry, sexism...). I think there is a line between belief/faith and opinion. Opinions are great to argue about, beliefs/faith should probably remain private/insulated.

If you hate space marines but can articulate it in game terms (the arguments that they were good in 3rd edition bother me when we are talking 8th e balance) you are adding something to the discussion vs the hive-mind, carefully groomed echo chamber of 10k people gushing over the newest sculpt and how GW is perfectly in the right for charging 40 bucks for their newest single character model...

This thread is bad and you should feel bad about starting it..... am I doing it right?



Constructive Criticism is about how to improve going forward.

Typically, in a real-life situation only provide constructive criticism if you first ask people if they want to hear your opinion or thoughts. If they agree, then they get what they get. If a thread opens with, "what do you think of this?" then they are asking for criticism. If a thread does not ask for criticism, then don't give any.

Just as there is skill in giving critique there is skill in responding to it, many people fail to learn the latter skill. In fact I would ague MORE fail the latter than the former as I have seen more than one occasion where someone giving critique responds in a harsh/hostile fashion toward someone who counters their given critique.

Even if its evident that the counter is through inexperience, the person who originally gave the critique doesn't take the clear opening to expand upon their thoughts, and instead responds in a hostile fashion (with some even then throwing the hissy fit "well that's it I'm not giving critique anymore).


Also keep in mind that moderators on most well run forums are not draconian evil people; in fact in my experience most modes HATE banning anyone. What happens though is that you get people who get into arguments multiple times, irrespective of their skill within a craft/hobby/interest. As a result they eat up moderator time and cause more fights with the membership and people REMEMBER fights. So what happens is that these people steadily build up a backlog of minor punishments until a point is reached where they are removed rather than retained because its clear that they just don't get on well with the members of the site.



Just as some newbies consider their terrible achievements to be great works; just so can many experienced people consider their word akin to gospel, not to be countered or argued against.




As for what constructive critique is. It is a means by which you evaluate and provide feedback upon something. Evaluation is both the positive and the negative, people often forget that you HAVE to reinforce the good as well as critique the bad otherwise you leave the person you are trying to help in a position where you're not reinforcing their good choices.
Sometimes the only good thing is that they've attempted it and there's far more wrong than bad; in those cases its often best to take things in smaller steps and provide feedback to improve things, but without going overboard (too much and they can't take it all in). The idea here is that they remain a part of the community and are taken through in stages building up their skill layer upon layer*.


Of course some people believe that critique should be like army drilling; a verbal beatdown and orders that must be followed. This "Can" work but in any instance where it does work its based upon enforced relationships; ergo where both parties can't leave each others influence. This extreme "break and rebuild" a person approach fails online because people can just walk away (or have a fight about it where no one wins); or where you're not going to meet that same person in every post they make for critique - ergo the break stage is there but the rebuild is missing - ergo it fails.
Also lets face it its pretty ugly and no one "likes it". They might respect the end result, but they dislike the process; and for the vast majority of people forums and such are places they come to engage with others and be part of the community and enjoy themselves.








(*see see that subtle painting analogy there!)

I think the point that gets missed here is that like with almost everything on the internet, there is something of a two way street at work.

For every one of these interactions, usually one - and often both - of the parties involved are some kind of delusional. And for every forum mod mad with authority who decides ANY negative statement is the mindless negativity of the Dark And Scary Internet creeping into the safe space they're trying to create, there's a forum member who believes that they alone are the final paragon of logic and reason and that anyone who takes any issue for any reason with their arguments (regardless of their merits) is a brainwashed or possibly paid shill who only wants to suppress them.

These two tend to create each other. The douchey trigger-happy mod is generally so sick of hearing the same old mindlessly negative crap he just decides "you know what? NO tolerance from now on!" and the me-against-the-world forumgoer usually started off being banned by a few oversensitive mods before he concluded that EVERY moderator action is unjustified repression.

Scotsman - there are indeed both kinds; in theory a moderator should be more controllable or at least accountable on decently sized communities because they should be part of a team; therefore the rest of the team should keep them in line (and on most banning outright is often a group choice not a single mod's choice outside of banning spambots or extreme cases - eg someone posting graphic violence or porn - even then in the latter case it might be a suspension first before advancing to a ban once reviewed).


I have certainly seen a few users (esp on the steam forums!) who display all the behaviour of a troll without realising that they are. They bounce from group to group causing trouble and once they "hate mods" they often get very brazen about it and often throw out comments against mods all the time; even if they are brand new to a community.

 JamesY wrote:
Critiquing something involves discussion of its merits as well as its flaws, which is something that is often forgotten. Many people see constructive criticism as just pointing out faults.

I don't think there needs to be a discussion of merits for something to be constructive. Its all context based. In my line of work, I receive feedback daily on my performance. If I royally feth up, I don't get a pleasant discussion of what things I did well as well as all the things I fethed up, I get told explicitly and exactly what I did wrong, why I did it, and what I need to do to fix it. That's constructive; an explanation in detail was given (without insults or belittling) and a clear course of action was discussed for me to follow. Quite simply, it was criticism aimed to improve my abilities.

Constructive criticism can be pointing faults, but the other half of the equation is a path to improve.

In 40k, that would look like;

"Here's a model I'm working on!"
"Your paints are too thick. Try thinning them and applying multiple thin layers instead."

Done. Of course, its certainly a polite thing to do and will generally gather a more positive response if you preface or surround the feedback in something positive, like adding how you like the colour scheme first, but its not mandatory to be considered constructive criticism.

Likewise, when discussing the gameplay of 40k (or other rulesets) I don't need to first point out the good aspects before I delve into the issues in the game and how I'd fix them. I can simply point out the flaws and offer my thoughts on how to fix it. Perfectly valid constructive criticism when done professionally.

Again, being polite and adding positive things to the feedback is a nice thing to do, but its not necessary, and constructive criticism that doesn't do that shouldn't be disallowed or looked down on. The most valuable feedback I've received in life has been straight to the point with no flowery language or praise added in to make me feel better.

the_scotsman wrote:
I think the point that gets missed here is that like with almost everything on the internet, there is something of a two way street at work.

For every one of these interactions, usually one - and often both - of the parties involved are some kind of delusional. And for every forum mod mad with authority who decides ANY negative statement is the mindless negativity of the Dark And Scary Internet creeping into the safe space they're trying to create, there's a forum member who believes that they alone are the final paragon of logic and reason and that anyone who takes any issue for any reason with their arguments (regardless of their merits) is a brainwashed or possibly paid shill who only wants to suppress them.

These two tend to create each other. The douchey trigger-happy mod is generally so sick of hearing the same old mindlessly negative crap he just decides "you know what? NO tolerance from now on!" and the me-against-the-world forumgoer usually started off being banned by a few oversensitive mods before he concluded that EVERY moderator action is unjustified repression.

This is a really good point, and I think we're all dancing around two key concepts: empathy, and understanding that the community exists to serve all members, not just yourself. While forums and facebook groups are technically open to the public, there is a shared expectation of what sort of topics will be discussed, and how. While groups are inclusive, if a user isn't really contributing in a meaningful way, that's going to cause friction.

For myself, I think "constructive criticism" has a few qualities:

1. It presents a perceived issue/problem in an objective, non-personal way.

2. It presents some possible solutions to the stated issue.

3. It tries to remain objective, or at least calls out that it is subjective, and refrains from any personal judgement on the requestor.

I also think this type of feedback is incredibly rare, but when it does show up it can be very helpful so long as the requestor also keeps emotional responses to a limit. Asking for any kind of criticism requires divorcing yourself from your emotional investment in whatever you're asking about, and this is very hard for most people to do.

My experience over the years in various places anecdotally shows that the signal to noise ratio is stupidly high in this kind of thing, especially on the internet.

For me, constructive critisiscm goes like this:

1) Identify a problem

2) Explain why it is a problem. If possible, refer to a good element of the design (eg, "This element looks cheap compared to everything else").

3) Provide Solutions.

I'd say that step 2 is the key to making it constructive.

I agree with a lot of what people are saying and considering constructive criticism. I'd add that the "constructive criticizer" on forums should not barrage any and all related topics with the same constructive criticism over and over again. I find this is what tends to move people from helpful to annoying verging on awful resulting in their expulsion from group setting.

Example would be basically saying the same thing regarding points in every, single 40k/AoS thread either on here or on other sites.

 Blacksails wrote:


Constructive criticism can be pointing faults, but the other half of the equation is a path to improve.

In 40k, that would look like;

"Here's a model I'm working on!"
"Your paints are too thick. Try thinning them and applying multiple thin layers instead."

Done. Of course, its certainly a polite thing to do and will generally gather a more positive response if you preface or surround the feedback in something positive, like adding how you like the colour scheme first, but its not mandatory to be considered constructive criticism.

I actually find that finishing with something positive tends to result in the feedback being better received, as the reader gets to the end of your comment and has a happy moment, rather than the negative takeaway of having the flaw pointed out.

As you say, not essential, but does go a long way towards keeping the tone positive.

 insaniak wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:


Constructive criticism can be pointing faults, but the other half of the equation is a path to improve.

In 40k, that would look like;

"Here's a model I'm working on!"
"Your paints are too thick. Try thinning them and applying multiple thin layers instead."

Done. Of course, its certainly a polite thing to do and will generally gather a more positive response if you preface or surround the feedback in something positive, like adding how you like the colour scheme first, but its not mandatory to be considered constructive criticism.

I actually find that finishing with something positive tends to result in the feedback being better received, as the reader gets to the end of your comment and has a happy moment, rather than the negative takeaway of having the flaw pointed out.

As you say, not essential, but does go a long way towards keeping the tone positive.

Agreed, plus its a great time to reinforce good aspects of their creation as well.

For example with the painting analogy presented you could end with complimenting them on the colour scheme they've chosen (provided its good of course). That gives them something they can work on to improve and also reinforces somewhere where they've done something right which helps them retain that behaviour/trait.

The key is to realise that if they don't know the errors they are making then chances are they don't know the right things they are doing either. So you've got to critique both in order to give a comprehensive approach. Reinforcing the good and advising on the bad.

I think others have explained it very well, but TLR - "This would work better" is CC. "That is terrible and I don't like it" is not CC.

Unfortunately, many people view social media and forums for places to act in way they would never dare face-to-face with someone. It is a well-known phenomenon and only getting worse as the generation growing up never knows any different than to spit back rage at anyone that does not 'thumbs up' their post.

However, I will say this is not the norm and most people here are very civil. I have had some terrible experiences on WS and was actually the recipient of a warning that almost got me banned for stating the above in a bit more exaggerated manner.

An important part of constructive criticism is making sure you understand the goal of something. Criticizing a square because it isn't sufficiently triangular when it is intended to be a square isn't very constructive, even if you have very good advice about how to make it more triangular.

In addition, it's also useful to consider what sort of restrictions, limits, or scarcity might prevent someone from taking your advice, or that might prevent someone from implementing the constructive part of that criticism.

auticus wrote:
Warseer got militant with its bannings a few years back, banning people for a number of things under the guise of "trolling", though looking at some of the bans and some of the conversations a lot of it seemed to simply be the moderator didn't agree with what the person was saying and had enough of hearing it.

Warseer has been a trash site for a long time. This isn't anything recent.

I got banned on that forum back in 2007 for "being an American" according to the mod's reason for banning me. ( I'm Brasilian, either way, sigh... )

Then I got banned again in 2008. I joined a thread discussing if if GW should make more black models. The thread was going for some time, and I realized no one was saying the obvious, so I went ahead and did - I said there were two fixes for this 1) take a model, and paint it black. There, a black imperial guard soldier. 2) have GW make models that look like black people, WHICH WOULD BE A BAD IDEA because if they did that, people would call GW racist for making models with blakc features. I was banned for suggesting "black people have big noses and lips".

So even though I was pointing out a level headed criticism and defending GW that if they did what people wanted when it comes to racial models, GW would lose in the end, so it would be best to the modeler to pain their d00ds whatever they want. Well, constructive criticism wasn't wanted, it seemed.

That forum was a "SJW" sewage a decade ago, and I've never set foot on there since.

This site seems to have a mix of views, even though the moderation team leans Left, they still allow more freedom with their topics here, which I have loved and enjoyed since migrating from Warseer.

So, what you may think is a recent thing about civil discussions concerning forums and FB groups.... the problem might not be the site, its moderators and users.... the problem may be YOU and your evolving opinions as you get older which run counter whatever echo chamber goes on those places.

Hell, even just making this post puts me on alert here. But whatever.

 insaniak wrote:

I actually find that finishing with something positive tends to result in the feedback being better received, as the reader gets to the end of your comment and has a happy moment, rather than the negative takeaway of having the flaw pointed out.

As you say, not essential, but does go a long way towards keeping the tone positive.

Between a job teaching snowboarding, and my current work, I've learned to use the 'gak sandwich' technique. Start by saying something somewhat positive, identify and explain the weak points, provide a solution, then finish on a positive again.

Finishing on that positive note is pretty good for reinforcing the advice given, I agree.

In person I do this almost exclusively, but I often leave off the positive on the internet, which is something I should work on.

"You suck at painting" is not constructive.

"You need to thin those paints a bit, and use the edge of your brush more in edge highlighting, that's the problem."

The latter is constructive. It doesn't have to be hollow praise, or be 'nice'- it just has to be something the person can work with. Otherwise you're just being a tool.